Usability, occupational performance and satisfaction evaluation of a smart environment controlled by infrared oculography by people with severe motor disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A smart environment is an assistive technology space that can enable people with motor disabilities to control their equipment (TV, radio, fan, etc.) through a human-machine interface activated by different inputs. However, assistive technology resources are not always considered useful, reaching quite high abandonment rate. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a smart environment controlled through infrared oculography by people with severe motor disabilities. The study sample was composed of six individuals with motor disabilities. Initially, sociodemographic data forms, the Functional Independence Measure (FIMTM), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) were applied. The participants used the system in their domestic environment for a week. Afterwards, they were reevaluated with regards to occupational performance (COPM), satisfaction with the use of the assistive technology resource (QUEST 2.0), psychosocial impact (PIADS) and usability of the system (SUS), as well as through semi-structured interviews for suggestions or complaints. The most common demand from the participants of this research was 'control of the TV'. Two participants did not use the system. All participants who used the system (four) presented positive results in all assessment protocols, evidencing greater independence in the control of the smart environment equipment. In addition, they evaluated the system as useful and with good usability. Non-acceptance of disability and lack of social support may have influenced the results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".